Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Darwin's theory

1…4041434546…78

Comments

  • #1262
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    catallus wrote: »
    To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

    No poetry or speculation at all :(

    Richard Feynman debunked this offensive piece of tripe many years ago, so I'll let it to him to show you how wrong you are:


    I think that if you watch the above properly with the right intentions and open-mindedness, you'll find that your view is the one is barren and banal, a philosophy not worth living with.


  • #1263
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    floggg wrote: »
    As a lawyer, can I just saw we very much aren't.

    We are trained to know the law and legal procedure, and how to use that for the benefit of our clients.

    A large part of our job involves putting forth arguments we don't necessarily belive in ourselves.

    Efit: just to clarify, I'm not saying we are the lying conniving con men we are made out to be.

    But our job is to represent our clients interests not our own, so sometimes that will mean putting forward a somewhat shaky position or argument in the best way we can in the hopes of getting a result for them.

    We don't outright lie (at least we shouldn't), but we are often required to try and interpret the facts in a way which suits a narrative, rather than searching for an objective truth.
    ... so you don't lie ... and you present the argument as well as you can ... that was what I said.
    ... and the lawyers on the other side do the same.


  • #1264
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Yep, it's where the christians picked up the concept of hell from. Judaism had no such concept at the time christianity got going, so they borrowed from their most numerous converts in the early days (the early days of chrisitianity being at about 100CE), former polytheistic Greeks.
    The Jews have always believed in Hades aka Sheol.
    Christians go to Heaven after death, and non-Christians (including Jews) go to Hades.

    Hades has been frequently confused with Hell. The two are not the same.
    Hades / Sheol is temporary, while Hell is final.
    Hell or Heaven are the final destinations after the Judgment.


  • #1265
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    The Jews have always believed in Hades aka Sheol.
    Christians go to Heaven after death, and non-Christians (including Jews) go to Hades.

    Hades has been frequently confused with Hell. The two are not the same.
    Hades / Sheol is temporary, while Hell is final.
    Hell or Heaven are the final destinations after the Judgment.

    Thanks, I wasnt aware of the distinction. Interesting, even if as others here have shown, its a distinction in story telling from a few thousand years ago.
    (Is mythology the correct term for this kind of stuff or has it a more specific meaning ?)


  • #1266
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    A guy in a sitcom on the telly got a calculation wrong and this proves huh?

    Is this the level of infantile argument you have slipped to?

    The real reason you've been arguing this stuff for 9 years is because you keeping failing Sophistry 101 in law school.
    ... it's a bit of craic ... but that moment ... when it finally dawns that 'molecules to man evolution' never happened ... is something like what happened to Sheldon Cooper in the clip.:)

    I know ... I was that soldier!!!

    ... and Sheldon ended with the observation that "now I'm worse than a fraud ... I'm practically a Biologist"!!!

    I wonder what could he possibly mean?:confused::pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #1267
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Thanks, I wasnt aware of the distinction. Interesting, even if as others here have shown, its a distinction in story telling from a few thousand years ago.
    (Is mythology the correct term for this kind of stuff or has it a more specific meaning ?)
    ... there is plenty of story telling going on on this thread and elsewhere.
    The Atheists tell stories that suit their beliefs ... and the Theists theirs.

    ... the key job is to logically wade through all of the stories ... and come out the other side with something approaching the truth.:)


  • #1268
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Christ *heads desk*. How can anyone be so ill informed. TBH when Mitochondrial "Eve" was first described it galled me that they decided the discovery of this person(rather a group of women) was to be dumbed down for the cheap seats and named "Eve". I just knew the dribblers and the fcuktards would be out in force shouting "see the Bible was right".
    Denial is a terrible (and foul-mouthed) thing.:eek::)


  • #1269
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    ... there is plenty of story telling going on on this thread and elsewhere.
    The Atheists tell stories that suit their beliefs ... and the Theists theirs.

    ... the key job is to logically wade through all of the stories ... and come out the other side with something approaching the truth.:)

    I though the atheists meant they have no beliefs at all? They just observe evidence and test theories that explain stuff. And jetison the theory if it does not pass the test. And so they dont have stories.

    But the theists do have beliefs, i.e draw conclusions without evidence. And drawn entirely from one story, which it seems was just written a few thousand years ago by ignorant people. And so is valueless today, and the theists are just either the most stupid in society, or those whose intellect cannot break free of an obsolete human facility to latch on to an idea even when their reason can easily contradict it.


  • #1270
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    J C wrote: »
    Denial is a terrible (and foul-mouthed) thing.

    No, it's frustration you're seeing. Frustration that once again you've resorted to "I know you are, but what am I, na-na-nana-na!"


  • #1271
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    osarusan wrote: »
    I'm surprised that so many posters still seem to under the assumption that logical argument will actually have an effect, and that a failure to be convinced up to this point is down to insufficient evidence.
    ... I have found that too.

    Everyone would be a Creationist, at this stage if logic or evidence had anything to do with it ... how can adults with science degrees look at Pondslime ... and conclude that it could ever become anything but Pondslime?

    ... and ye then say that ye don't believe in miracles.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #1272
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you don't lie ... and you present the argument as well as you can ... that was what I said.
    ... and the lawyers on the other side do the same.

    Unsurprisingly, you're comprehension skills are wanting.

    The point is that lawyers job isn't to present the objective truth. They only put forth those facts which support their particular argument.

    So you're argument that a law professor is a good authority on evolution because lawyers are trained to find and present the trust is absurdly fanciful. His skill is twisting the facts to support an argument - and so if anythinso his professional training should suggest he's only presenting one side of the argument.


  • #1273
    Tordelback
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Tordelback


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    I though the atheists meant they have no beliefs at all?

    Everyone has beliefs. Atheists just don't believe in gods. As the name suggests.

    Some atheists come to this position through science, but many others through philosophy, through life experience and simple reflection.


  • #1274
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    I though the atheists meant they have no beliefs at all? They just observe evidence and test theories that explain stuff. And jetison the theory if it does not pass the test. And so they dont have stories.
    The fact that Atheists have beliefs ... and beliefs that they are prepared to vociferously and strongly defend ... is proven by even a casual reading of this thread.

    Everyone has beliefs ... but Atheists find their erroneous claim that they are the only people in the World without beliefs a useful 'flag of convenience' to hide under ... as they spread their beliefs far and wide onto an unsuspecting public.

    A question ... if you guys deny and hide something that everybody can see (that ye have beliefs) ... what else could you be denying and hiding?

    ... could it be things that undermine and destroy your beliefs ... like the invalidity of Evolution?
    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    But the theists do have beliefs, i.e draw conclusions without evidence. And drawn entirely from one story, which it seems was just written a few thousand years ago by ignorant people. And so is valueless today, and the theists are just either the most stupid in society, or those whose intellect cannot break free of an obsolete human facility to latch on to an idea even when their reason can easily contradict it.
    Of course Theists have beliefs ... just like everyone has beliefs... but they aren't in denial of the fact that they have beliefs ... like the Atheists on this thread are.

    Ye do your argument no favours by denying something as obvious as the fact that ye have very strong beliefs.


  • #1275
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    J C wrote: »
    The idea that Atheists have beliefs ... and beliefs that they are prepared to vociferously and strongly defend ... is proven by even a casual reading of this thread.

    Everyone has beliefs ... but Atheists find their erroneous claim that they are the only people in the World without beliefs a useful 'flag of convenience' to hide under ... as they spread their beliefs far and wide onto an unsuspecting public.

    A question ... if you guys deny and hide something that everybody can see (that ye have beliefs) ... what else could you be denying and hiding?

    ... could it be things that undermine a
    nd destroy your beliefs ... like the invalidity of Evolution?

    Of course Theists have beliefs ... just like everyone has beliefs... and they aren't in denial of the fact that they have beliefs ... like the Atheists on this thread areare.

    Atheists believe that if they walk off a building they will fall.

    You believe an omnipotent being gives a damn about what an insignificant being like you (or anybody) gets up to.

    BIG Difference


  • #1276
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »

    Of course Theists have beliefs ... just like everyone has beliefs... and they aren't in denial of the fact that they have beliefs ... like the Atheists on this thread are.

    Ye do your argument no favours by denying something as obvious as the fact that ye have very strong beliefs.

    OK. So the atheists have 'belief' in science, although I guess that depends on the definition of belief.
    And the theists have belief in what are obsolete historic myths but are unable to align their belief with their reason.

    Are the theists the smartest guys in the room though : their intelligence allows them to ignore reason, facts, and the benefit of modern knowledge, and let their minds cling to an inbuilt human characteristic of believing myths to provide answers to questions that trouble them and their knowledge cannot answer ?

    And the atheists are unable to bridge the facts they know to be true and enjoy the comfort of the delusional anwsers, but acclimatise to that position?


  • #1277
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tordelback wrote: »
    Everyone has beliefs. Atheists just don't believe in gods. As the name suggests.

    Some atheists come to this position through science, but many others through philosophy, through life experience and simple reflection.
    ... and Theists are just the same.

    I came to my to my belief in Creation through science, mathematics, philosophy and reflection.


  • #1278
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You're equating atheism and evolution again.

    They aren't the same thing.
    ... I have never come across an Atheist who didn't believe in Evolution.
    ... its a key part of their worldview ... which holds to a belief in a Universe without God ... that 'created itself'.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    What about those of various religions who have no problem with evolution?
    I guess that on the 'origins issue' they are Practical Atheists.


  • #1279
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Isn't it? If the creationist hypothesis is indeed the one which evidence supports, surely at least one scientist from outside these religions would agree with it. But this has yet to happen.


    I wouldn't be 100% on that statement. For example this is that ould snake oil salesman the Dalai Lama's view on evolution:
    Con-man who wants theocracy restored in Tibet* wrote:
    From the Buddhist's perspective, the idea of these mutations being random events is deeply unsatisfying for a theory that purports to explain the origin of life.

    *Please note that I don't condone or agree with what China is doing there either. Both choices, going with Chinese opression or religious opression are equally evil in my opinion.


  • #1280
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I'm going to try to deal with the repeated claim that evolutionism and creationism are equivalent in that they're both different ways of interpreting the evidence to fit a given worldview. I'll ignore for the moment which is more likely, I just want to deal with that one claim.

    Evolution is supported by those of all religions and none, regardless of their personal beliefs in how life, the universe, and everything came about.

    Creationism is supported by a select group of religions, and it fits their worldview.

    Which one is more likely to be based on an objective interpretation of the evidence?
    Your are reductionist and presenting a false dichotomy.

    There are many varieties of Evolution ... and Atheists tolerate all kinds of interpretations under the banner of 'Evolution' in order to achieve common ground with other people.
    However, they are very hardline in deeming that only their variety of hard materialistic 'Evolution' can be endorsed by science or taught in school.

    Its a classic 'bait and switch' ... ye bait/attract Theists to Evolution by telling them that they can believe in their God(s) and Evolution ... and ye then 'switch' to an absolutist materialistic form of Evolution ... when it comes to spreading the theory over the popular media and in schools.

    ... and the hapless Theists who have 'crossed the rubicon' and believe in evolution, because other people do, find that they cannot reconcile it ultimately with God ... and many abandon their faith in God as a result ... or they end up with a meaningless God of their own making ... that even they don't believe in.
    ... all 'grist to the mill' of Atheism.


  • #1281
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    J C wrote: »

    ... and the hapless Theists who have 'crossed the rubicon' and believe in evolution, because other people do, find that they cannot reconcile it ultimately with God ... and many abandon their faith in God as a result ... or they end up with a meaningless God of their own making ... that even they don't believe in.
    ... all 'grist to the mill' of Atheism.

    While I'd agree with the rest of your post, this part here strikes me as being a teeny bit paranoid.

    The power of faith is fuelled by the internal spirit, not by external phenomena.

    Endowing "Atheism" with the self-knowledge to be able to plan such a thing, as ridiculous as that is on the face of it, and as attractive as it would be to create a strawman for some of those are just tired of the endless mindless meme, is just plain paranoia.


  • Advertisement
  • #1282
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,818 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    J C wrote: »
    Denial is a river in Africa.:eek::)
    fyp


  • #1283
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Atheists believe that if they walk off a building they will fall.

    You believe an omnipotent being gives a damn about what an insignificant being like you (or anybody) gets up to.

    BIG Difference
    When all else fails ... try a strawman!!!:eek:

    It may surprise you, but Theists (including Creationists) also believe that if they walk off a building they will fall.

    All beings are interested in what others think and get up to ... and an omniscient being has the capacity to know what everybody thinks and gets up to.

    ... and that's the BIG Difference (with a BIG God) allright!!!:pac:


  • #1284
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    catallus wrote: »
    While I'd agree with the rest of your post, this part here strikes me as being a teeny bit paranoid.

    The power of faith is fuelled by the internal spirit, not by external phenomena.

    Endowing "Atheism" with the self-knowledge to be able to plan such a thing, as ridiculous as that is on the face of it, and as attractive as it would be to create a strawman for some of those are just tired of the endless mindless meme, is just plain paranoia.
    Paranoia is an unfounded fear of something.
    The current emptying of the mainstream churches is correlated with a loss of faith in God by younger people, in particular ... who have been most exposed to Atheism and it 'pet pony' of materialistic evolution.

    I am not fearful of Evolution or Atheism ... and the damage that these twin ideas have caused to Christianity (with considerable help from the carry-on within Christianity itself) is obvious.

    ... so no ... I'm not paranoid ... as I don't fear anything ... and the evidence is there for all to see that many former members of the Christian Churches are now Practical Atheists and Materialistic Evolutionists.

    ... and catallus ... could I ask you, if you can't help me on something, please don't hinder me, like the rest of the posters do.

    ... there is plenty for you to challenge in the posts of the Atheists on this thread ... without helping them by taking me to task over non-existent paranoia.

    Practical Atheism has ruled the World ... via capitalism in the west ... and communism in the east ... so I wouldn't under-estimate the power and determination of atheism to promote its worldview at all.


  • #1285
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,168 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    J C wrote: »
    ... and Theists are just the same.

    I came to my to my belief in Creation through science, mathematics, philosophy and reflection.
    Oh please do tell us what mathematics you used to justify your delusions, or most likely just post an irrelevant Youtube video as your answer and then get back to trolling.


  • #1286
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,818 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    J C wrote: »
    150,000 Evolutionist 'years' allright.:)
    The problem is that the regression equations are out by a factor of about 25.
    ... it happens ... Sheldon Cooper was off by a factor of 10,000!!!
    Must try that drinking game where you take a drink every time there is a scientific inaccuracy on that show.



    This oddly enough is pretty accurate of what the Sheldon does.

    Penny: So, what’s new in the world of physics?

    Leonard: Nothing.

    Penny: Really, nothing?

    Leonard: Well, with the exception of string theory, not much has happened since the 1930’s, and you can’t prove string theory, at best you can say “hey, look, my idea has an internal logical consistency.”

    Penny: Ah. Well I’m sure things will pick up.


  • #1287
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    J C wrote: »

    Practical Atheism has ruled the World ... via capitalism in the west ... and communism in the east ... so I wouldn't under-estimate the power and determination of atheism to promote its worldview at all.

    Maybe paranoia is the wrong word. But I do believe there's a willingness on the part of too many otherwise mindful people to attribute things such as untrammeled capitalism or communism to an underlying atheistic philosophy when such a thing is as wildly illogical as atheism itself.

    Tyranny cares little for religion, one way or the other.

    I don't think evolution or any other scientific discoveries or developments have damaged Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). Those who facilely claim modern scientific knowledge as a victory for irreligiosity are as blind as those who reject god as being a "sky-fairy".

    As for "under-estimating" the power of atheism, it is a false light. Have faith in your faith. :)


  • #1288
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Thargor wrote: »
    Oh please do tell us what mathematics you used to justify your delusions, or most likely just post an irrelevant Youtube video as your answer and then get back to trolling.
    Here is a relevant Youtube video that does the maths on the odds against the Complex Functional Specified Information that we see in life arising via non-intelligently directed processes.



  • #1289
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    catallus wrote: »
    Maybe paranoia is the wrong word. But I do believe there's a willingness on the part of too many otherwise mindful people to attribute things such as untrammeled capitalism or communism to an underlying atheistic philosophy when such a thing is as wildly illogical as atheism itself.

    Tyranny cares little for religion, one way or the other.
    I agree that tyranny will use any 'flag of convenience' to promote itself ... and it can (and has) used both Theism and Atheism to its own end.
    catallus wrote: »
    I don't think evolution or any other scientific discoveries or developments have damaged Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). Those who facilely claim modern scientific knowledge as a victory for irreligiosity are as blind as those who reject god as being a "sky-fairy".
    If we all arose via purely materialistic processes ... then that is the end of Christianity ... there was no Fall ... and therefore no need for redemption ... and Jesus Christ was a nice but ultimately deceived guy whose death was as meaningless as all of the billions of Human deaths, since and before.
    Christianity will struggle on like a headless chicken for a while ... but it is doomed to extinction, if we weren't created by God - and this can be objectively demonstrated.
    catallus wrote: »
    As for "under-estimating" the power of atheism, it is a false light. Have faith in your faith. :)
    I have faith in my faith ... but I also don't under-estimate the power of the alternatives ...
    ... that are packaged and marketed in very shiny attractive clothes indeed.


  • #1290
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    J C wrote: »

    If we all arose via purely materialistic processes ... then that is the end of Christianity ... there was no Fall ... and therefore no need for redemption ....

    "Purely materialistic processes" : can you not see that argument is on a plane from which faith is elevated? You seem to have swallowed the materialist kool-aid if you are going to argue on such terms. Our redemption is necessitated by our very creation in the corporeal realm. This is our Fall.

    Anyways, if you're happy fighting the fight on those grounds, who am I to stop you!?:p

    But it's about as useful as shooting at fleas.


  • Advertisement
  • #1291
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    catallus wrote: »
    "Purely materialistic processes" : can you not see that argument is on a plane from which faith is elevated? You seem to have swallowed the materialist kool-aid if you are going to argue on such terms. Our redemption is necessitated by our very creation in the corporeal realm. This is our Fall.

    Anyways, if you're happy fighting the fight on those grounds, who am I to stop you!?:p

    But it's about as useful as shooting at fleas.
    ... I am debating on both a spiritual and physical basis.

    Our redemption is predicated on a Fall having occurred, in the first place.

    ... otherwise we are just naturally produced 'gizmos' ... who come and go like 'flies on the desert air'.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement